By. Sri. Jose. V. Thannikode, President:-

The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties to get the remaining amount of repair, cost and compensation for the delay of repairs for the accidental vehicle.

2. Brief of the complaint:- The complainant is the owner of a Mahindra Verito 1.5 D2 Bs vehicle bearing No. KL 12 F 6475, year of Manufacture 2011. The vehicle was purchased from the 1^st opposite party giving an amount of Rs.1,42,000/- ready in cash and the balance amount towards the purchase value of the vehicle was arranged by the 1^st opposite party and the vehicle was insured by the insurer Oriental Insurance Company Sobba TSM Co. R S Road, Palakkad. The vehicle met with and accident on 08.11.2012 during the period of insurance coverage at Mampuzha bridge, Kozhikode By-pass and without further delay, the vehicle was entrusted to the 2^nd party for repair on 09.11.2012 itself. It was done according to the direction and advice of the 1^st opposite party the branch concern of ITL Motors. Though the vehicle was given in time to get it repaired there was, an undue-delay and gross negligence on the part of the 2^nd opposite party in delivering the vehicle after completion of the entire repair works. The complainant again and again contacted the 2^nd opposite party for a quick delivery of the vehicle, but the 2^nd opposite party opted one or other reason to not to deliver the vehicle in full condition. This complainant has been employed as a taxi driver and this vehicle was purchased taking much risk to eke-out his lively hood. The complainant made several oral request for the immediate delivery of the vehicle but the entire efforts were miserably failed. As to put and end to the undue delay in delivery of the vehicle this complainant send a lawyer notice to the 2^nd opposite party and the Oriental Insurance Company Palakkad, dated 10.09.2013. The insurer on receiving the lawyer notice send a reply which itself is with false and unsustainable reasons. The vehicle is having full cover insurance from the very date of purchase. The 2^nd opposite party and 3^rd opposite party were in contact and what repairs were done by the 2^nd opposite party that to be met by the 3^rd opposite party the insurer. This complainant had given the documents that were necessary to meet the ends of claim. At the time of purchase the finance was arranged by the 1^st opposite party, according to them they are in tie-up. The attractive offers of the financier Mahindra and Mahindra branch at Sulthan Bathery, Chulliyode Road, were forgotten by the financier and stepped into vengeance upon this complainant. This complainant was not in a position to remit the monthly installment in absence of taxi work and arbitration proceedings were initiated against this complainant and this complainant is demanded to pay penal charges and other penalties to the financier. The vehicle was delivered after repair to this complainant only on 09.10.2013. Though the vehicle has full cover insurance, the delivery of the vehicle was effected on receiving Rs.85,743/- by the 2^nd opposite party, which is absolutely against the norms and condition of the insurance policy. And moreover this complainant is not informed of under what heads this amount was levied. The repaired vehicle not delivered in time and the delivered vehicle after repair was not free from defects and which is having complaints such as engine off while running, steering tight and clutch jumbing. The acts of the 1 to 3 opposite parties are absolutely a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

3. Cause of action arouse on 9^th October 2013 when the vehicle was given for repair to the 2^nd opposite party under direction of the 1^st opposite party who delivered the vehicle to this complainant and there after the delivery of the vehicle to this complainant on 09.10.2013 receiving Rs.85,748/- towards the repair charges. The 1^st Opposite party is the branch concern of the 2^nd opposite party who run business at Kakkavayal within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Hence prayed before the Forum for an Order directing the opposite parties No.1 to 3 to pay Rs.50,000/- towards the delay in repairing and delivering the vehicle and to pay this complainant Rs.85,748/- the amount received by the 2^nd opposite party at the time of delivering the vehicle on 09.10.2013 and to repair and rectify the existing defects of the vehicle.

4. Notices were served to opposite parties and they filed version. In the version, opposite party No.1 and 2 stated that all the averments and contentions in the above complaint, except those which are specifically admitted hereunder are false and incorrect and denied by these opposite parties. The opposite party no.1 is the branch office/workshop of the opposite party No.2. Opposite Party No.2 is a Company registered under the provisions of Companies Act and hence the Opposite party No.1 is not a necessary party in the matter. The Complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. The Complainant alleged that the vehicle manufactured by M/s. Mahindra and Mahindra has certain defects. Therefore the manufacturer M/s. Mahindra and Mahindra ought to have been made a party in the Complainant. For this reason the Complaint is liable to be dismissed. The contention in the Complaint that the Complainant brought his vehicle for repair is true. The contention that these opposite parties committed deficiency in service is denied as it is false. The contention that these opposite parties have committed delay and negligence in service to the Complainant is false and hence denied by these opposite parties. The true facts are as follows. The said vehicle was brought to the 2^nd opposite party for repair after it sustained extensive damages in an accident. According to the complainant the vehicle was insured and he wanted to get the insurers clearance before repair. As demanded by him an estimate was prepared on 13.11.2012 and given to him for legal formalities. An additional estimate was also prepared on 25.01.2013 and given to him. He wanted to get the clearance from Insurer. Thereafter as instructed by the complainant a Repair Order was registered at the 2^nd opposite party on 12.03.2013. Repair was completed on 29.07.2013 and this fact was telephonically intimated to the complainant on that day itself to his number 8606723702. A Repair Order Bill was drawn at opposite party No.2 on 29.07.2013 and intimated to the complainant. The complainant had to pay Rs.85,748/- as repair charges as it was beyond the insurance coverage. Repeatedly he was reminded of these facts. He did not turned up till 09.10.2013 for payment. The complainant paid the money only on 09.10.2013 and took delivery of the vehicle. There is no delay or negligence on the part of opposite party No.1 and 2. It is pertinent to note that the complainant was suppressing these facts in his complaint. It may therefore be noted that the allegations in the complaint are against facts and are false, misleading and incorrect. These opposite parties reiterate that there was no deficiency in providing the service to the customer and this opposite party had neither collected any money illegally from the complainant nor denied him service benefits. Hence it is prayed that this Honorable Forum may be pleased to dismiss the complaint with cost to these opposite parties.

5. Opposite party No.3 filed version stating that this opposite party hereby denies entire allegations and averments contained In the complaint except those that are specifically and expressly admitted herein. This opposite party submits that this complaint is not maintainable as per law facts and circumstances of this case. This opposite party admits that the jeep bearing No. KL I2 F 6475 was Insured with this opposite party at the material time at the alleged accident. This opposite party submits that the driver of the vehicle had driven the vehicle without badge. Hence this opposite party is not to pay the damage caused to the vehicle. This opposite party asked the complainant to produce the badge of the driver of the vehicle. But he did not produced the same. Driving the vehicle without badge is a violation of terms and condition of the policy. This opposite party is not a necessary party to this proceeding and not responsible for the delay in repairing the vehicle. There is no deficiency of service on the part of this opposite party. In fact immediately after the accident it was reported to this opposite party provided the claim form to the insured and alter its receipt this opposite party appointed an insurance surveyor Mr. M.G.Saseendran. On completion of repair work on 07.09.2013 the vehicle was re-inspected by the insurance surveyor, Mr. M.G.Saseedran. On 09.09.2013 this opposite party obtained survey report along with claim documents. After scrutiny of claim papers this opposite party advised the Insured to submits the extracts of R.C and the driving license of the driver either to the surveyor or to 1^st opposite party. In the mean while this opposite party obtained a lawyer notice, clarifying the reasons for delay and in repair and delivery of the vehicle. In the reply to the lawyer notice this opposite party once again remained to furnish the extract of R.C and driving license of the driver to settle the claim. Finally this opposite party received the extract of R.C and driving license only on 30.10.2013 but badge not produced. Hence there is no deficiency of service or delay on the part of this opposite party in processing the claim and satisfying the same. The complainant is not entitled to get any further amount towards repair charge sum of Rs.85,748/- as claimed In the complaint. This opposite party submits that there was no undue delay caused in settling the claim by this opposite party. If delay caused in repairing the vehicle it is to be explained by the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.

6. Complainant filed proof affidavit and stated as stated in the complaint and he is examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A7 is marked. Ext.A1 is the copy of the Policy. Ext.A2 is the Copy of Registration Certificate. Ext.A3 is the copy of Vehicle Inventory check sheet. Ext.A4 is the Postal Receipt. Ext.A5 is the Lawyer Notice. Ext.A6 is the Receipt dated 09.10.2013. Ext.A7 is the Driving License. Opposite party No.1 and 2 also filed proof affidavit and stated as stated in the version and examined as OPW1 and Ext.B1 to B6 were marked. Ext.B1 is the Repair Order. Ext.B2 is the Service quotation for Rs.8,17,391.47/-. Ext.B3 is the Additional Job estimate for Rs.50,156/-. Ext.B4 is the Invoice Bill for Rs.3,76,447.00/-. Ext.B5 is the Receipt for Rs.85,748.00 received by opposite party No.1 and 2 from the complainant. Opposite party No.3 is also filed proof affidavit and examined as OPW2 and Ext.B6 ie Terms and conditions of the policy is also marked.

7. On perusal of complaint, version, documents, depositions and evidences the Forum raised the following points for consideration:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from the

part of opposite parties?

2. Relief and cost.

8. Point No.1:- On considering all the documents and evidence, Forum noticed the delay for starting the work is due to the discussions with the company and insurance company for getting the total loss scheme. But after deciding the above aspect at last final work order given on 12.03.2013 ie the document Ext.B1. But the work completed only on 29.07.2013 that means after final work order opposite party No.1 and 2 took four and half months to complete the work. It is a clear case of deficiency in service from the side of opposite party No.1 and 2. For sanction the claim the complainant not produced the badge to opposite party No.3 in time. The complainant produced Registration Certificate and driving license to the opposite party No.3 only on 30.10.2013 but that day also complainant not produced the badge. The complainant deposed before the Forum on a question by the opposite party No.3 “whether you have produced the badge before the opposite party No.3 knowing that it is not produced before opposite party No.3”. Answer:- yes produced it after release of the vehicle. OPW2 also deposed that after receiving the badge within 8 days the claim is sanctioned. So we feel that no deficiency is caused from the side of opposite party No.3.

9. As already discussed there is a delay in repairing the vehicle about four and half months of delay. For getting the parts for repair a reasonable time of two month can be caused. For inordinate delay of another two and half month cannot be tolerated. Hence we found that on this aspect the there was a gross deficiency of service from the side of opposite party No.1 and 2. Hence the Point No.1 is found accordingly.

10. Point No.2:- Since the Point No.1 is found against the opposite party No.1 and 2, they are liable to pay compensation and cost and the complainant is entitled for the same.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and opposite party No.1 and 2 are directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) as compensation and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) as cost of the proceedings to the complainant. Opposite party No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable for the same. The opposite party No.1 and 2 are directed to comply the Order within one month from the date of receipt of this Order, thereafter the complainant is entitled for an interest at the rate of 12% per annum.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30^th day of June 2015.

Date of Filing:22.11.2013. PRESIDENT :Sd/- MEMBER :Sd/-

MEMBER :Sd/-

/True Copy/

Sd/-

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

APPENDIX.

Witness for the complainant:-

PW1. Liju. P. K. Complainant.

Witness for the Opposite Parties:-

OPW1. Praveen. P. K. Service Advisor, ITL Motors.

OPW2. Ramanandan. Assistant Manager, Oriental Insurance

Company, Calicut.

Exhibits for the complainant:

A1. Copy of Vehicle Insurance Policy.

A2. Copy of Registration Certificate.

A3. Copy of Vehicle Inventory Check Sheet. Dt:08.11.2013.

A4. Postal Receipt.

A5. Copy of Lawyer Notice. Dt:10.09.2013.

A6. Copy of Receipt. Dt:09.10.2013.

Exhibits for the opposite parties:-

B1. Copy of Repair Order. Dt:12.03.2013.

B2. Service Quotation. Dt:13.11.2012.

B3. Additional Job Estimate. Dt:25.01.2013.

B4. Tax Invoice duplicate copy.

B5. Copy of Receipt. Dt:09.10.2013

B6(Series). Vehicle Insurance Policy (2 Nos).

Sd/-

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

a/-